<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>ADYAR 6TH PUBLIC TALK 3RD JANUARY, 1934</TITLE>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="k.css"></HEAD><BODY>
<TABLE align=center border=0 width=450><TR><TD align=center height=80><br>
<FONT size=5 color=black><B>ADYAR 6TH PUBLIC TALK 3RD JANUARY, 1934</B></FONT><br><br><br><DIV class='PP2'>As this is my last talk here, I shall first answer the questions that have been asked me, and then conclude with a brief talk.  But before I proceed to answer the questions, I should like again to thank Mr. Warrington, the President pro tem., for inviting me to speak at Adyar and for his great friendliness.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
As I said at the beginning of my talks, I am really not interested in attacking your society.  In saying this I am not going back on what I have said.  I think that all spiritual organizations are a hindrance to man, for one cannot find truth through any organization.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Question: Which is the wiser course to take - to protect and shelter the ignorant by advice and guidance, or to let them find out through their own experience and suffering, even though it may take them a whole lifetime to extricate themselves from the effects of such experience and suffering?
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Krishnamurti: I would say neither; I would say help them to be intelligent, which is quite a different thing.  When you want to guide and protect the ignorant, you are really giving them a shelter which you have created for yourself.  And to take the opposite point of view, that is, to let them drift through experiences, is equally foolish.  But we can help another by true education - not this modern disease we call education, this passing through examinations and universities.  I don't call that education at all.  It is merely stultifying the mind.  But that is a different question.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
If we can help another to become intelligent, that is all we need do.  But that is the most difficult thing in the world, for intelligence does not offer shelter from the struggles and turmoils of life, nor does it give comfort; it only creates understanding. Intelligence is free, untrammelled, without fear or superficiality. We can help another to free himself from acquisitiveness, from the many illusions and hindrances which bind him, only when we begin to free ourselves.  But we have this extraordinary attitude of wanting to improve the masses while we ourselves are still ignorant, still caught up in superstition, in acquisitiveness.  When we begin to free ourselves, then we shall help another naturally and truly.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Question: While I agree with you as to the necessity for the individual to discover superstitions, and even religions as such, do you not think that an organized movement in that direction is useful and necessary, particularly as in its absence the powerful vested interests, namely, the high priests in all the principal places of pilgrimage, will continue to exploit those who are still caught up in superstitions and religious dogmas and beliefs?  Since you are not an individualist, why don't you stay with us and spread your message instead of going to other lands and returning to us when your words will probably have been forgotten?
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Krishnamurti: So you conclude organizations are necessary.  I shall explain what I mean by organizations.  There must be organizations for the welfare of man, the physical welfare of man, but not for the purpose of leading him to truth.  For truth is not to be found through any organization, by any path, by any method. Merely helping man, through an organization, to destroy his superstitions, his beliefs, his dogmas, will not give him understanding.  He will but create new beliefs in place of the old which you have destroyed.  That is what is happening throughout the world.  You destroy one set of beliefs, and man creates another; you take away a particular temple, and he creates another.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
But if individuals, out of their understanding, create intelligence about them, create understanding about them, then organizations will come into being naturally.  Now we start first with organizations and then say, "How can we live and adjust ourselves to all the demands of these organizations?" In other words, we put organization first and individuals afterwards.  I have seen this in every society: individuals go to the wall while organization, that mysterious thing in which you are all working, becomes a force, a crushing power for exploitation.  That is why I feel that freedom from superstition, from beliefs and dogmas, can begin only with the individual.  If the individual truly understands, then through his understanding, through the action of that understanding, he will naturally create organizations which will not be instruments of exploitation.  But if we put organization first, as most people do, we are not destroying superstition but only creating substitutions.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Take, for example, the possessive instinct.  Law sanctifies you, blesses you, in the possession of your wife, your children, and your properties; it honours you.  Then if communism comes, it honours the person who possesses nothing.  Now to me, both systems are the same; they are the same in contrary terms, in opposition.  When you are forced to a certain action, shaped, moulded by circumstance, by society, by an organization, in that action there is no understanding.  You are merely exchanging masters.  Organizations will result naturally if there are people who truly feel and are intelligent about these things.  But if you are concerned merely with organization, you destroy that vital feeling, that intelligent, creative thinking, because you have to consider the organization, the revenue of the organization, and the beliefs on which the organization is founded.  You have to consider all the commitments, and therefore neither you nor the organization will ever be fluidic, alive, pliable.  Your organization is much more important to you than freedom.  If you really think about this, you will see.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
A few individuals create organizations out of their enthusiasm, their enlivened interest, and the rest of the people fit into these organizations and become slaves to them.  But if there were creative intelligence - which hardly exists in this country, because you are all followers, saying, "Tell me what to do, what discipline, what method to follow", like so many sheep - if you were truly free, if you had creative intelligence, then out of that would come action; you would tackle the problem fundamentally, that is, through education, through schools, through literature, through art; not through this perpetual talk about organizations.  To have schools, to have the right kind of education, you must have organization; but all that will come naturally if individuals, if a few people are truly awake, are truly intelligent.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
"Since you are not an individualist, why don't you stay with us and spread your message instead of going away to other lands and returning to us when your words will probably have been forgotten?" I have promised this time to go to other countries, South America, Australia, the United States.  But when I come back I intend to stay a long time in India.  (Applause) Don't bother to applaud.  Then I want to do things quite differently. Question: Which comes first, the individual or organization?
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Krishnamurti: That is very simple.  Are you concerned with patchwork, which implies the modification of nationalism, of class distinction, of possessiveness, of inheritance, fighting over who should enter temples, doing a little bit of alteration here and there: or do you desire a complete, radical change?  That change means freedom from self-consciousness, from the limited"I" which creates nationalism, fear, distinctions, possessiveness.  If you perceive fundamentally the falseness of these things, then there comes true action.  So you have to understand and act.  As you are, you are merely glorifying self-consciousness, and I feel that basically all religious societies are doing that, though in theory, in books, their teachings may be different.  You know, I have often been told that the Upanishads agree with what I say.  People tell me, "You are saying exactly what Buddha said, what Christ said", or, "Fundamentally you are teaching what Theosophists stand for." But that is all theory.  You must really think about this, you must be really honest, frank.  When I say "honest", "frank", I do not mean sincere, for a fool can be sincere.  (Replying to an interruption) Please just follow this.  A lunatic who holds steadfastly to one idea, one belief, is sincere.  Most people are sincere, only they have innumerable beliefs.  Instead of one, they have many, and they are trying to be sincere in holding to them.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
If you are really frank, honest, you will see that your whole thought and action is based on this patchwork, this limited consciousness, this self-glorification, this desire to become somebody either spiritually or in the physical world.  If you act and work with that attitude, then what you do must inevitably lead to patchwork; but if you act truly, then for you this whole structure has collapsed.  For yourself you want glorification, you want safety, you want security, you want comfort; so you have to decide to do one thing or the other; you cannot do both.  If frankly, honestly, you pursue security and comfort, then you will find out their emptiness. If you are really honest with regard to this self-glorification, then you will perceive its shallowness.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
But unfortunately our minds are not clear.  We are biased, we are influenced; tradition and habit bind us.  We have innumerable commitments.  We have organizations to keep up.  We have committed ourselves to certain ideas, to certain beliefs.  And economics play a large part in our lives.  We say, "If I think differently from my associates, from my neighbours, I may lose my job.  Then how could I earn a living?" So we go on as before.  That is what I call hypocrisy, not facing facts directly.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Perceive truly and act; action follows perception, they are inseparable.  Find out what you desire to do, patchwork or complete action.  Now you are laying emphasis on work, and therefore primarily on patchwork.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Question: Reincarnation explains much that is otherwise full of mystery and puzzle in life.  It shows, among other things, that highly cherished personal relationships of any one incarnation do not necessarily continue in the next.  Thus, strangers are in turn our relations and vice versa; this reveals the kinship of the human soul, a fact which, if properly understood, should make for true brotherhood.  Hence, if reincarnation is a natural law and you happen to know that it is such; or, equally, if you happen to know that there is no such law, why do you not say so?  Why do you always prefer in your answers to leave this highly important and interesting subject surrounded with the halo of mystery?
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Krishnamurti: I don't think it is important; I don't think it solves anything fundamentally.  I don't think it makes you understand that fundamental, living, unique unity, which is not the unity of uniformity.  You say, "I was married to someone last life, and I am married to a different person in this life; does not this bring about a feeling of brotherhood, or affection, or unity?" What an extraordinary way of thinking!  You prefer the brotherhood of a mystery to the brotherhood of reality.  You would be affectionate because of relationship, not because affection is natural, spontaneous, pure.  You want to believe because belief comforts you. That is why there are so many class distinctions, wars, and the constant use of that absurd word"tolerance".  If you had no divisions of beliefs, no sets of ideals, if you were really complete human beings, then there would be true brotherhood, true affection, not this artificial thing that you call brotherhood.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The question of reincarnation I have dealt with so often that I shall speak of it only briefly now.  You may not consider at all what I say; or you may examine it, just as you like.  I am afraid you will not consider it - though that does not matter - because you are committed to certain ideas, to certain organizations, bound by authority, by traditions.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
To me, the ego, that limited consciousness, is the result of conflict.  Inherently it has no value; it is an illusion.  It comes into being through lack of understanding which in turn creates conflict, and out of this conflict grows self-consciousness or limited consciousness.  You cannot perfect that self-consciousness through time; time does not free the mind from that consciousness. Please make no mistake; time will not free you from this self-consciousness, because time is merely postponement of understanding.  The further you postpone an action, the less you understand it.  You are conscious only when there is conflict; and in ecstasy, in true perception, there is spontaneous action in which there is no conflict.  You are then not conscious of yourself as an entity, as the "I".  Yet you desire to protect that accumulation of ignorance which you call the"I", that accumulation from which springs this idea of more and more, that centre of growth which is not life, which is but an illusion.  So while you are looking to time to bring about perfection, self-consciousness merely increases.  Time will never free you from that self-consciousness, that limited consciousness.  What will free the mind is the completeness of understanding in action; that is, when your mind and heart are acting harmoniously, when they are no longer biased, tethered to a belief, bound by a dogma, by fear, by false value, then there is freedom. And that freedom is the ecstasy of perception.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
You know, it would really be of great interest if one of you who believe so fundamentally in reincarnation would discuss the subject with me.  I have discussed it with many, but all they can say is, "We believe in reincarnation, it explains so many things", and that settles the question.  One cannot discuss with people who are convinced of their beliefs, who are positive of their knowledge. When a man says that he knows, the matter is finished; and you worship the man who says, "I know", because his positive statement, his certainty, gives you comfort, shelter.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether you believe in reincarnation or not seems to me a very trivial matter; that belief is like a toy, it is pleasant; it does not solve a thing, because it is merely a postponement.  It is merely an explanation, and explanations are as dust to the man who is seeking.  But unfortunately you are choked with dust, you have explanations for everything.  For every suffering you have a logical, suitable explanation.  If a man is blind, you account for his hard lot in this life by means of reincarnation.  Inequalities in life you explain away by reincarnation, by the idea of evolution. So, with explanations, you have settled the many questions concerning man, and you have ceased to live.  The fullness of life precludes all explanations.  To the man who is really suffering, explanations are like so much dust and ashes.  But to the man who is seeking comfort, explanations are necessary and excellent.  There is no such thing as comfort.  There is only understanding, and understanding is not bound by belief or by certainties.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
You say, "I know that reincarnation is true." Well, what of it? Reincarnation, that is, the process of accumulation, of growth, of gain, is merely the burden of effort, the continuance of effort; and I say there is a way of living spontaneously, without this continual struggle, and that is by understanding, which is not the result of accumulation, growth.  This understanding, perception, comes to him who is not bound by fear, by self-consciousness.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Question: The man who remains unmoved in the face of dangers and trials in life, such as the opposition of his fellow men to a course of action, is always a man of steadfast will and sterling character. Public schools in England and elsewhere recognize the importance of developing will and character, which are commonly regarded as the best equipment with which to embark on life, for will insures success, and character insures a moral sanction.  What have you to say about will and character, and what is their true value to the individual?
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Krishnamurti: The first part of this question serves as the background of the question itself which is, "What have you to say about will and character, and what is their true value to the individual?" None, from my point of view.  But that does not mean that you must be without will, without character.  Don't think in terms of opposites.  What do you mean by will?  Will is the outcome of resistance.  If you don't understand a thing, you want to conquer it.  All conquering is but slavery and therefore resistance; and out of that resistance grows will, the idea of "I must and I must not." But perception, understanding, frees the mind and heart from resistance, and so from this constant battle of "I must and I must not."
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The same thing applies to character.  Character is only the power to resist the many encroachments of society upon you.  The more will you have, the greater is self-consciousness, the"I", because the "I" is the result of conflict, and will is born out of resistance which creates self-consciousness.  When does resistance come into being?  When you pursue acquisition, gain, when you desire to succeed, when you are pursuing virtue, when there is imitation and fear.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
All this may sound absurd to you because you are caught up in the conflict of acquisition, and you will naturally say, "What can a man be without will, without conflict, without resistance?" I say that is the only way to live, without resistance, which does not mean non-resistance; it does not mean having no will, no purposefulness, being blown hither and thither.  Will is the outcome of false values; and when there is understanding of what is true, conflict disappears and with it the developing of resistance which is called will.  Will and the development of character, which are as the coloured glass that perverts the clear light, cannot free man; they cannot give him understanding.  On the contrary, they will limit man.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
But a mind that understands, a mind that is pliable, alert - which does not mean the cunning mind of a clever lawyer, a type which is so prevalent in India, a type which is destructive - the mind that is pliable, I say, the mind that is not bound, not possessive, to such a mind there is no resistance because it understands; it perceives the falseness of resistance, for it is like water.  Water will assume any shape, and still it remains water.  But you want to be shaped after a particular pattern because you have not complete understanding.  I say that when you fulfil, act completely, you will no longer seek a pattern and exert your will to fit into that pattern, for in true understanding there is constant movement which is eternal life.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Question: You said yesterday that memory, which is the residue of accumulated actions, gives rise to the idea of time and hence progress.  Please develop the idea further with special reference to the contribution of progress to human happiness.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Krishnamurti: There is progress in the field of mechanical science, progress with regard to machines, motor cars, modern conveniences, and the conquering of space.  But I am not referring to that kind of progress, because progress in mechanical science must ever be transient; in that there can never be fulfillment for man.  I must talk very briefly because I have many questions to answer.  I hope that what I say will be clear; if not, we shall continue at a later time.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
There can be no fulfillment for man in mechanical progress. There will be better cars, better aeroplanes, better machines, but fulfillment is not to be realized through this continual process of mechanical perfection - not that I am against machines.  When we talk of progress as applied to what we call individual growth, what do we mean?  We mean the acquiring of more knowledge, greater virtue, which is not fulfillment.  What is called virtue here may be considered vice in another society.  Society has developed the concepts of good and bad.  Inherently there is no such thing as good or bad.  Don't think in terms of opposites.  You have to think fundamentally, intrinsically.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
To me, through progress there cannot be completeness of action, because progress implies time, and time does not lead to fulfillment. Fulfillment lies in the present only, not in the future.  What prevents you from living completely in the present?  The past, with its many memories and hindrances.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
I shall put it differently.  While there is choice, there must be this so-called progress in things essential and unessential; but the moment you possess the essential, it has already become the unessential.  And so we go on, continually moving from unessential to essential, which in its turn becomes the unessential, and this substitution we call progress.  But perfection is fulfillment, which is the harmony of mind and heart in action.  There cannot be such harmony if your mind is caught up by a belief, by a memory, by a prejudice, by a want.  Since you are caught up in these things, you must become free of them, and you can become free only when you as an individual have found out their true significance.  That is, you can act harmoniously only when you discover their true significance by questioning, by doubting their existing values.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
I am sorry but I must now stop answering questions.  Many questions have been asked me with regard to the Theosophical Society, whether I would accept the presidency if it were offered me, and what would be my policy if I were elected; whether the Theosophical Society, which strives to educate the masses and raise the ethical standard, should be disbanded; what policy I would advocate for the Indo-British commonwealth, and so on.  I do not propose to stand for the presidency of the Theosophical Society because I do not belong to that Society.  That does not interest me - not that I think myself superior - for I do not believe in religious organizations, and also I don't want to guide a single man.  Please believe me, sirs, when I say that I don't want to influence one single person; for the desire to guide shows inherently that one has an end, a goal, towards which he thinks all humanity must come like a band of sheep.  That is what guidance implies.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Now I do not want to urge any man towards a particular goal or an end; what I want to do is to help him to be intelligent, and that is quite a different thing.  So I have not time to answer these innumerable questions based on such ideas.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Since it is rather late, I should like to make a resume of what I have been saying during the last five or six days, and naturally I must be paradoxical.  Truth is paradoxical.  I hope that those of you who have intelligently followed what I have been saying will understand and act, but not make a standard of me for your actions. If what I have said is not true to you, you will naturally forget it. Unless you have really fathomed, unless you have thought over what I have said, you will simply repeat my phrases, learn my words by heart, and that is of no value.  For understanding, the first requirement is doubt, doubt not only with regard to what I say, but primarily with regard to the ideas which you yourselves hold.  But you have made an anathema of doubt, a fetter, an evil to be banished, to be put away; you have made of doubt an abominable thing, a disease.  But to me, doubt is none of these; doubt is an ointment that heals.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
But what do you generally doubt?  You doubt what the other says. It is very easy to doubt someone else.  But to doubt the very thing in which you are caught up, that you hold, to doubt the very thing that you are seeking, pursuing, that is more difficult.  True doubt will not yield to substitution.  When you doubt another, as when someone said during one of these talks the other day, "We doubt you", that shows you are doubting what I am giving, what I am trying to explain.  Quite right.  But your doubt is but the search for substitution.  You say, "I have this, but I am not satisfied.  Will that satisfy me, that other thing which you are offering?  To find out, I must doubt you." But I am not offering you anything.  I am saying, doubt the very thing that is in your hands, that is in your mind and heart; then you will no longer seek substitution.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
When you seek substitution there is fear, and therefore increase of conflict.  When you are afraid you seek the opposite of fear, which is courage; you proceed to acquire courage.  Or, if you decide that you are unkind, you proceed to acquire kindness, which is merely substitution, a turning to the opposite.  But if, instead of seeking a substitution, you really begin to inquire into that very thing in which your mind is caught - fear, unkindness, acquisitiveness - then you will discover the cause.  And you can find out the cause only by continually doubting, by questioning, by a critical and intelligent attitude of mind, which is a healthy attitude, but which has been destroyed by society, by education, by religions that admonish you to banish doubt.  Doubt is merely an inquiry after true values, and when you have found out true values for yourself, doubt ceases.  But to find out, you must be critical, you must be frank, honest.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Since most people are seeking substitution, they are merely increasing their conflict.  And this increase of conflict, with its desire for escape, we call progress, spiritual progress, because to us substitution or escape is further acquisition, further achievement.  So what you call the search for truth is merely the attempt to find substitutes, the pursuit of greater securities, safer shelters from conflict.  When you seek shelters you are creating exploiters, and having created them, you are caught up in that machine of exploitation which says, "Don't do this, don't do that, don't doubt, don't be critical.  Follow this teaching, for this is true and that is false." So when you are talking of truth, you are really wanting substitution; you want repose, tranquillity, peace, assured escapes, and in this want you create artificial and empty machines, intellectual machines, to provide this substitution, to satisfy this want.  Have I made my meaning clear?
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
First of all, you are caught up in conflict, and because you cannot understand that conflict you want the opposite, repose, peace, which is an intellectual concept.  In that want you have created an intellectual machine, and that intellectual machine is religion; it is utterly divorced from your feelings, from your daily life, and is therefore merely an artificial thing.  That intellectual machine may also be society, intellectually created, a machine to which you have become slaves and by which you are ruthlessly trodden down.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
You have created these machines because you are in conflict, because through fear and anxiety you are driven to the opposite of that conflict, because you are seeking repose, tranquillity. Desire for the opposite creates fear, and out of that fear arises imitation.  So you invent intellectual concepts such as religions, with their beliefs and standards, their authority and disciplines, their gurus and Masters, to lead you to what you want, which is comfort, security, tranquillity, escape from this constant conflict. You have created this vast machine which you call religion, this intellectual machine which has no validity, and you have also created the machine that is called society, for in your social as well as in your religious life you want comfort, shelter.  In your social life you are held by traditions, habits, unquestioned values; public opinion acts as your authority; and unquestioned opinion, habit, and tradition eventually lead to nationalism and war.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
You talk of searching for truth, but your search is merely a search for substitution, the desire for greater security and greater certainty.  Therefore your search is destroying that which you are seeking, which is peace, not the peace of stagnation, but of understanding, of life, of ecstasy.  You are denied that very thing because you are looking for something that will help you to escape.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
So to me the whole purpose - if I may use that word without your misunderstanding me - lies in destroying this false intellectual machine by means of intelligence, that is, by true awareness.  You can understand, put away tradition, which has become a hindrance; you can understand, put away Masters, ideas, beliefs.  But do not destroy them merely to take up new ones; I don't mean that.  You must not merely destroy, merely put away, you must be creative; and you can be creative only when you begin to understand true values.  So question the significance of traditions and habits, of nationality, of discipline, of gurus and Masters.  You can understand only when you are fully aware, aware with your whole being.  When you say, "I am seeking God", fundamentally you mean, "I want to run away, to escape." When you say, "I am seeking truth, and an organization might help me to find it", you are merely seeking a shelter.  Now I am not being harsh;I only want to emphasize and make clear what I am saying.  It is for you to act.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
We have created artificial hindrances.  They are not real, fundamental hindrances; they are artificial.  We have created them because we are seeking something, rewards, security, comfort, peace. To gain security, to help us avoid conflict, we must have many aids, many supports.  And these aids, these supports, are self-discipline, gurus, beliefs. I have gone into all this more or less fully.  Now when I am speaking about these things, please don't think in terms of opposites, for,then you will not understand.  When I say that self-discipline is a hindrance, don't think that therefore you must not have discipline at all.  I want to show you the cause of self-discipline.  When you understand that, there is neither this self-imposed discipline nor its opposite, but there is true intelligence.  In order to realize what we want - which is fundamentally false, because it is based on the idea of the opposite as a substitution - we have created artificial means, such as self-discipline, belief, guidance.  Without such belief, without such authority, which is a hindrance, we feel lost; thus we become slaves and are exploited.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
A man who lives by belief is not truly living; he is limited in his actions.  But the man who, because he understands, is really free from belief and from the burden of knowledge, to him there is ecstasy, to him there is truth.  Beware of the man who says, "I know", because he can know only the static, the limited, never the living, the infinite.  Man can only say, "There is", which has nothing to do with knowledge.  Truth is ever becoming; it is immortal; it is eternal life.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
We have these hindrances, artificial hindrances, based on imitation, on acquisitiveness which creates nationalism, on self-discipline, gurus, Masters, ideals, beliefs.  Most of us are enslaved by one of these, consciously or unconsciously.  Now please follow this, otherwise you will say, "You are merely destroying and not giving us any constructive ideas."
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
We have created these hindrances; and we can be free from them only by becoming aware of them, not through the process of discipline, not by substitution, not by control, not by forgetfulness, not by following another, but only by becoming aware that they are poisons.  You know, when you see a poisonous snake in your room, you are fully aware of it with your whole being.  But these things, disciplines, beliefs, substitutions, you do not regard as poisons.  They have become mere habits, sometimes pleasurable and sometimes painful, and you put up with them as long as pleasure outweighs pain.  You continue in this manner till pain overwhelms you.  When you have intense bodily pain, your only thought is to get rid of that pain.  You don't think of the past or the future, of past health, of the time when you are not going to have any more pain. You are only concerned with getting rid of pain. Likewise, you have to become fully and intensely aware of all these hindrances, and you can do that only when you are in conflict, when you are no longer escaping, no longer choosing substitutes.  All choice is merely substitution.  If you become fully aware of one hindrance, whether it be a guru, memory, or class consciousness, that awareness will uncover the creator of all hindrances, the creator of illusions, which is self-consciousness, the ego.  When mind awakens intelligently to that creator, which is self-consciousness, then in that awareness the creator of illusions dissolves itself.  Try it, and you will see what happens.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
I am not saying this as an enticement for you to try.  Don't try with the purpose of becoming happy.  You will try it only if you are in conflict.  But as most of you have many shelters in which you take comfort, you have altogether ceased to be in conflict.  For all your conflicts you have explanations - so much dust and ashes - and these explanations have eased your conflict.  Perhaps there are one or two among you who are not satisfied with explanations, not satisfied with ashes, whether dead ashes of yesterday, or future ashes of belief, of hope.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
If you are really caught up in conflict you will find the ecstasy of life, but there must be intelligent awareness.  That is, if I tell you that self-discipline is a hindrance, don't immediately reject or accept my statement.  Find out if your mind is caught up in imitation, if your self-discipline is based on memory, which is but an escape from the present.  You say, "I must not do this", and out of that self-imposed prohibition grows imitation; so self-discipline is based on imitation, fear.  Where there is imitation there cannot be the fruition of intelligence.  Find out if you are imitative; experiment.  And you can experiment only in action itself.  These are not just so many words; if you think it over, you will see.  You cannot understand after action has taken place, which would be self-analysis, but only in the moment of action itself.  You can be fully aware only in action.  Don't say, "I must not be class-conscious", but become aware to discover if you are class-minded.  That discovery in action will create conflict, and that conflict itself will free the mind from class consciousness, without your trying to overcome it.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
So action itself destroys illusions, not self-imposed discipline. I wish you would think this over and act; then you would see what it all means.  It opens immense avenues to the mind and heart, so that man can live in fulfillment without seeking an end, a result; he can act without a motive.  But you can live completely only when you have direct perception, and direct perception is not attained through choice, through effort born of memory.  It lies in the flame of awareness, which is the harmony of mind and heart in action.  When your mind is freed from religions, gurus, systems, from acquisitiveness, then only can there be completeness of action, then only can mind and heart follow the swift wanderings of truth. </DIV></TD></TR></TABLE></BODY></HTML>
